Actually, she is supporting him in the primary. What struck everyone was that she oddly and unnecessarily went on to say that she would back the winner of the primary, whoever that was. Playing both ends against the middle, I guess.
This is classic Hillary. She actually has 3 different factions to try and please. Triangulate has taken on new meaning with her and her "chase for the Presidency".
1. She has to please the Moonbat Wing (and there are many) of the Democrat Party, therefore her announcement of non-support for Lieberman if he loses the primary.
2. She must try and please the Moderate Wing (what few is left) of the Democrat Party, therefore she supports Lieberman in the primary.
3. She must try and move toward the "middle" of the idealogical spectrum and likely voters, therefore she supports the war (to a moderate degree), but continuously speaks of Bush doing a horrendous job conducting it.
She may just have a nervous breakdown trying to balance all these positions.
Oh..okay, you are right...I keep getting confused on the "language" of politics..
There are some that are backing Lamont though, right??
And then there are the ones that will back who wins the primary..but, don't care.
Are there any that support an indepedent candidacy if Lamont wins the primary?
Which is exactly how the Clintons operate. They make sure they gain from a stance or statement, no matter who is in the way. And that stance isnt made or the statement isnt made until it is optimized for maximum benefit to them. Say what you want about these grifters, but they are brilliant operators. An example-people actually believe both are Clintons "centrists" or moderates. Another example-Hillary's stance on Iraq. By backing the war and earning the ire of the moonbats, she is banking on enough couch potatoes believing she is a Hawk and will act like one if elected. That is the perception they have cultivated..